Domestic Energy Crops Potential and Constraints Review

NNFCC The Bioeconomy Consultants

Report Title: Domestic Energy Crops; Potential and

Constraints Review

Project Number: 12-021

April 2012

A report for DECC

URN: 12D/081

Domestic Energy Crops Potential and Constraints Review, Page 2 of 27

Author(s)

Dr Matthew Aylott, NNFCC Science Writer

Fiona McDermott, NNFCC Consultant

Reviewer(s)

Lucy Hopwood, NNFCC Head of Biomass and Biogas

Disclaimer

While NNFCC considers that the information and opinions given in this work are

sound, all parties must rely on their own skill and judgement when making use of it.

NNFCC does not make any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to

the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this report and

assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information.

NNFCC will not assume any liability to anyone for any loss or damage arising out of

the provision of this report.

NNFCC

NNFCC is a leading international consultancy with expertise on the conversion of

biomass to bioenergy, biofuels and bio-based products.

NNFCC, Biocentre, Phone: +44 (0)1904 435182

York Science Park, Fax: +44 (0)1904 435345

Innovation Way, E: [email protected]

Heslington, York, Web: www.nnfcc.co.uk

YO10 5DG.


1 Executive Summary

This study considers domestically produced non-food crops grown specifically for

energy generation. These include both established perennial crops such as

Miscanthus and short rotation coppice (SRC) willow, and novel species like

switchgrass and reed canary grass. The study does not cover annually cultivated

crops also used for food or feed which may be used in other technologies, for

example maize used in anaerobic digestion or grains and oilseeds for use in

transport fuels.

The benefits of these energy crops include not only their use for biomass heat and

electricity but also their ability to store carbon, benefit industrial landscapes, prevent

erosion, improve biodiversity in the right location and ensure fuel security. However,

the planted area of energy crops remains small in the UK and, although there is no

single reliable source of data, the most accurate information we have (1) suggests

10,114 hectares (ha) have been supported by the Energy Crops Scheme, see figure

1, and we understand 1,500 ha of SRC was planted pre-Energy Crops Scheme in

around 1996.

We are aware that some of these crops have been removed at the end of the live

grant agreement, due to economic or productivity issues. We estimate, based on

discussions with industry and Natural England that less than 10,000 ha may remain in

production. The potential for scale up is currently restricted by our planting and

harvesting capacity, grower acceptance, economics and technology

compatibility. There is also social resistance around energy crops that needs to be

approached sensitively, especially where perennial energy crops are proposed and

long-term land use change is likely.

The theoretical maximum area of land available in England and Wales for growing

Miscanthus and SRC, not impinging on food production, has been modelled to be

between 0.93 and 3.63 M ha. If we assume planting would not take place below a

gross margin of £526/ha for Miscanthus (at £60/odt) then research suggests the

maximum area of land available will be 0.72-2.80 M ha. Alternatively, if we assume a

gross margin of £241/ha for SRC (at £60/odt) this figure decreases to 0.62-2.43 M ha.

But Miscanthus and SRC remain novel crops and there is an associated risk with

growing them; despite these prices being available to some growers in the current

market we have not seen anything like this level of uptake. Without education,

training and improved contract security uptake could be as low as 0.007-0.05 M ha

in England and Wales. These ranges must be interpreted with care as the underlying

assumptions have a large degree of potential error but offer an estimate based on

our best knowledge and understanding.

If we were to carry on with business as usual, perennial energy crops would remain

marginal. If we increase the area of plantings by 20% every year, by 2020 we would


have around 0.04 M ha in the ground. This falls around the middle of our lowest

range of potential and hence it remains feasible to exceed this, but only if planting

rates were to increase at a dramatic rate. This clearly shows we have much to do to

come close to the potential offered by energy crops and also does not take into

account the delay in achieving harvestable biomass or other capacity constraints.

Domestic supplies of perennial energy crops often offer superior greenhouse gas

(GHG) balances and more needs to be done to encourage the development of a

domestic energy crop market. This could include: full effective promotion of the

existing ring fenced Energy Crops Scheme, its extension and communication to

agriculture and biomass sectors beyond 2013, and robust support for the production

of sustainable biomass on non-prime arable land that is inefficient for food

production. Addressing all the barriers to deployment will require further action both

from Government and Industry.


Contents

1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 3

2 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Project aim and scope ................................................................................................ 7

3 The Energy Crops Industry ............................................................................................... 7

3.1 History ............................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Current status ................................................................................................................ 8

3.3 Future Opportunities ................................................................................................... 10

4 Review ............................................................................................................................. 10

4.1 Review of social and environmental barriers and opportunities ......................... 11

4.1.1 Food production ..................................................................................................... 11

4.1.2 Biodiversity ............................................................................................................... 12

4.1.3 Water use ................................................................................................................. 13

4.1.4 GHG emissions ......................................................................................................... 13

4.1.5 Review of educational barriers and opportunities ............................................ 14

4.2 Review of economic, legislative and technical barriers and opportunities ...... 14

4.3 Summary of barriers and opportunities ................................................................... 17

5 Scenario development for energy crop deployment .............................................. 19

5.1 Maximum theoretical potential ................................................................................ 20

5.2 Likely farmer uptake based on gross margins ........................................................ 21

5.3 Likely farmer uptake based on social factors ........................................................ 22

6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 23

7 References ...................................................................................................................... 24


Table of Figures

Figure 1: Summary of area under live Energy Crop Scheme agreements (1) ................ 9

Figure 2: Domestic energy crop usage under the Renewables Obligation, 2010-11 (2)

.................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3: Summary of the most severe barriers to energy crops ..................................... 18

Figure 4: Range of predictions for the contribution to UK primary energy from

domestically source biomass feedstocks (28) ................................................................... 20


2 Introduction

2.1 Background

The Renewable Energy Directive has set ambitious targets for renewable energy

generation by 2020. Biomass has been identified as a major contributor to the

delivery of the 2020 targets for electricity and particularly for heat and transport

fuels.

Provided local markets exist, biomass energy crops such as Miscanthus and short

rotation coppice (SRC) willow offer growers the chance to diversify into non-food

crops, generate renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,

enhance biological diversity and stimulate the rural economy.

However, a workable bioenergy sector is dependent upon a secure supply of

biomass feedstocks from a range of sources. Lack of feedstock is said by developers

to be the main barrier to deployment, as without guaranteed long-term feedstock

supply finance will not be made available.

Indigenous feedstocks like energy crops and „waste‟ biomass are currently

underutilised but offer significant potential that could help mitigate the pressures on

the supply of biomass, offering opportunities for diversifying domestic supplies that

could benefit both the electricity and heat market.

2.2 Project aim and scope

The aim of this paper is to review the evidence relating to the potential deployment

opportunities of domestic energy crops. It will primarily cover an estimation of

potential production from energy crops in the England and Wales, but will also

appraise the associated environmental considerations and other possible constraints

to take up.

NB: This study considers domestically produced non-food crops grown specifically for

energy generation. These include both established perennial crops such as

Miscanthus and SRC willow, and novel species such as switchgrass and reed canary

grass. The study does not cover annually cultivated crops also used for food or feed

which may be used in other technologies, for example maize used in anaerobic

digestion or grains and oilseeds for use in transport fuels.

3 The Energy Crops Industry

3.1 History

Dedicated energy crops have been grown commercially in the UK since spring 1996

when the first biomass power station was planned, known as ARBRE (a 40MWe

project which was developed with the intention of using 100% energy crops and


which signed contracts with a number of farmers). The first grant programme to

support energy crop establishment (ECS1 1) was launched in 2000, offering a fixed

rate payment per hectare for Miscanthus and SRC plantings in England 2. Uptake

was initially very slow, however, as there was almost no bioenergy market at the time

and the grants were deemed to be too low to encourage uptake. Unfortunately the

ARBRE project was unsuccessful and was decommissioned not long after it initially

began operation. This left a number of growers with crops for which they had no end

market.

In 2008 the second phase of the Energy Crops Scheme (ECS2) was launched,

delayed from 2006, this time with slightly higher grant rates (initially 40%, then

increased to 50% of actual establishment costs). This, combined with increased

demand from the bioenergy sectors and early promotion of the scheme by Natural

England, led to a gradual increase in energy crops production in the UK. In

particular, „hubs‟ of activity occurred in the vicinity of two key energy crop users of

Drax in Yorkshire and Eccleshall in Staffordshire. In addition to the ECS available in

England, some support was also available through the „Energy Aid Payment

Scheme‟, which paid a flat rate of €45/ha for all crops grown on non-set aside land

intended for fuel or energy use. This programme was run directly by the EU and

opened in 2004, but due to budgetary constraints payments ended and the scheme

closed in 2009.

Development of the industry was severely stunted during the years 2006-2008, as for

a period of 17 months there was no support scheme for the crops between the

closure of ECS1 and the beginning of ECS2. This shattered confidence in the energy

crops market and purportedly contributed to the demise of some key players in the

industry. However, the market did begin to recover, and the period 2008-2010

showed a gradual increase in energy crop production in the UK coupled with an

increased demand for the crops from bioenergy generators. Unfortunately

deployment in recent years has slowed significantly, due to poor economics and

other barriers which are preventing establishment of the crops (see section 4). New

plantings are now mainly restricted to farmers wanting to produce fuel for their own

usage, and very little additional material is being fed into biomass supply chains.

3.2 Current status

Energy crops plantings remain small in the UK and, although there is no single reliable

source of data, the most accurate information we have (1) suggests that around

10,000 ha were planted as a consequence of ECS1 and ECS2. A further 1,500 ha was

also established pre-ECS1 intended for the ARBRE plant in Yorkshire. However, the

consensus within industry is that a proportion of this area will have been removed

1 Energy Crops Scheme 1, England Rural Development Programme (2000 – 2006) 2 There have been no grant schemes for energy crops in Wales, hence current production in

Wales is negligible.


either due to productivity or economic issues, and hence further research and

collection of primary data is needed to establish exactly how much of land is still

cultivating energy crops.

Figure 1: Summary of area under live Energy Crop Scheme agreements (1)

Total area planted under

ECS1 (2000-2006)

Total area planted under

ECS2 (2006-2012)

Region Miscanthus (ha) SRC (ha) Miscanthus (ha) SRC (ha)

East Midlands 1890 609 333 264

East of England 381 76 93 40

North East 0 228 0 0

North West 63 125 0 0

South East 305 257 95 18

South West 1036 31 387 11

West Midlands 859 27 374 0

Yorkshire and Humber 1843 464 216 89

Subtotal 6377 1817 1498 422

TOTAL 10,114

Similarly data collated by Ofgem, as part of sustainability requirements in the

Renewables Obligation, shows that only approximately 45,000 tonnes of energy

crops were used in biomass power stations 3 between 2010 and 2011 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Domestic energy crop usage under the Renewables Obligation, 2010-11 (2)

Biomass Type Biomass Form Mass

(tonnes)

Country of

Origin

Short Rotation Coppice willow Willow granules 1,848.06 England

Short Rotation Coppice Wood chips 2,133.32 UK

SRC willow SUBTOTAL 3,981.38

Miscanthus and Cereal Pellets 4,478.48 UK

Miscanthus Pellets 2828.08 UK

Wood and Miscanthus Dust 7,387.52 UK

Miscanthus „Miscanthus grown as

an energy crop‟

25,343 UK

Miscanthus with biomass binders:

90% Miscanthus, 10% cereal

residues

Pellets 542.62 UK

Miscanthus SUBTOTAL 40,579.70

TOTAL 44,561.08

3 In England and Wales


However, a number of companies4 are operating in the energy crops industry,

which have made a clear commitment to energy crops and a significant

financial investment in planting, harvesting, processing and transport equipment.

3.3 Future Opportunities

The potential for scale up is currently restricted by our planting and harvesting

capacity, grower acceptance and technology compatibility. There is also social

resistance around energy crops that needs to be approached sensitively, especially

where perennial energy crops are proposed and long-term land use change is likely.

The Biomass Strategy (3) suggested 350,000 ha of perennial energy crops could

potentially be planted by 2020, however because energy crop plantings have been

slower than expected and there are more pressures on land availability than ever

before it is likely we will fall some way short of this figure.

However, a realistic target for the potential uptake of energy crops remains elusive

and there is a clear need to identify what this is likely to be in deciding subsidy

support and future resource planning. It is especially clear that long-term planning is

needed to create a secure and sustainable platform for growth and remove

uncertainty.

Perennial energy crops grown as a domestic feedstock also provide wider benefits,

creating and sustaining jobs and value to the rural economy, for example. NNFCC

recently compiled data and evidence on jobs in the bioenergy sector on behalf of

DECC. The Biosynergy Integrated Project (4), led by ECN in the Netherlands

concluded the labour required in order to produce 1 oven dry tonne of Miscanthus

is 0.000852 FTE and of SRC is 0.000945 FTE. This is employment that would not be

offered by other non-biomass low carbon technologies.

If we increase the amount of plantings we have by 20% every year, by 2020 we

would have around 0.04 M ha in the ground, supporting around 250 jobs in

feedstock supply. This is a conservative estimate and hence it remains feasible to

exceed this, but only if planting rates were to increase at a dramatic rate. This

clearly shows we have much to do to come close to the potential offered by energy

crops and also does not take into account the delay in achieving harvestable

biomass or other capacity constraints.

4 Review

In order to assess the potential and constraints of growing perennial crops for energy

production in the UK we must undertake a full literature review of the social,

4 Including (but not limited to): Miscanthus Growers Ltd, Regro, International Energy Crops,

Crops4Energy, Coppice Resources, Strawsons Energy, etc.


environmental and economic barriers and opportunities. This should include data

collated from scientific analysis in previous studies on energy crops, including

impacts on:

a) Social and environmental:

i. Food production

ii. Biodiversity

iii. Water use

iv. GHG emissions

v. Educational

b) Economic

c) Legislative

d) Technical

Scenarios of likely or potential uptake can then be developed on this basis.

4.1 Review of social and environmental barriers and opportunities

4.1.1 Food production

The impact of bioenergy on food production is less direct than the impact of

biofuels on food production because bioenergy typically does not use food

crops. Instead it uses non-edible crops like Miscanthus and SRC willow. In

addition, by using idle and marginal lands in the UK for energy crop

production we can mitigate the conflict with areas of food production and

make better use of otherwise unproductive land.

However, planting energy crops may result in land use change. As biomass

becomes more competitive with fossil fuels more land may be planted with

energy crops, conversely the amount of land available for food would

decrease. This has raised concerns that food prices will rise as a result.

Some studies have attributed the increasing price of food to the growth in

bioenergy and in particular biofuels (5; 6; 7; 8). Other studies (9; 10) downplay

the role of bioenergy and biofuels in inflating food prices, instead attributing

higher than expected food costs to a combination of poor food crop yields,

market speculation, increasing demand from China for livestock feed,

increasing cost of agricultural inputs and the decline in the value of the dollar,

in addition to bioenergy and biofuel growth.

There also remains a large area of available land for bioenergy that does not

compromise food security; an outlook published in 2009 (11) suggests that

current cropland could be more than doubled by adding 1.6 billion hectares

– mostly from Latin America and Africa – without impinging on land needed

for forests, protected areas or urbanisation. However, much of this available

land is far from agricultural infrastructure and significant investment would be

needed to realistically make this land available for growing energy crops. In


addition, the study doesn‟t account for rural communities‟ use of land, e.g.

for unstructured cattle grazing, firewood collection etc.

4.1.2 Biodiversity

In general, Miscanthus and SRC support a wider abundance and diversity of

wildlife (both flora and fauna) when compared to conventional arable

agriculture but this may decrease if energy crops are used to replace

grasslands or woodlands, which is not recommended and often restricted.

There remains a lack of evidence on the biodiversity impacts of planting

energy crops on idle land; most of the work completed to date has made the

comparison with arable production and in many cases annual crops.

Miscanthus provides a habitat which encourages a greater number and

diversity of species than winter sown cereal crops, particularly earthworms

and spiders. Defra also report that one study (12) showed that the Miscanthus

crop had five times more mammal species and four times more bird species

than a control crop of wheat.

Research by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (13) found that in both

summer and winter there tended to be slightly more bird species in

Miscanthus fields compared with the arable control fields. But according to

the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (14) the

structure of Miscanthus is unlikely to provide a suitable nesting habitat for

open-field, ground-nesting birds, because crop growth in Spring may be so

rapid that the vegetation becomes impenetrable for the chicks to fledge.

In addition, varieties of Miscanthus currently being promoted for bioenergy

are non-seeding, so the crop will not provide any seed food resource itself.

Therefore the value of Miscanthus as a foraging area for seed-eating species

in winter is likely to be low.

SRC willow, for example, provides a more stable, less intensive environment in

which species of plants, invertebrates and small mammals which are

uncommon in cultivated arable land can persist (15; 16; 17). In particular

wasps, bees and ants are common in SRC and provide essential ecosystem

processes, such as plant pollination or pest control.

As edge habitats support higher densities of birds than the interior it is

important to retain headlands, rides and open areas within the plantations to

increase the overall conservation value. Commercial SRC plots also provide

shelter and warmth favourable to butterfly species, it is therefore important to

retain suitable headlands to support these species (15).

Incorporating improved plantation design (e.g. including a ride) and

management can enhance biodiversity. However, when planted under

Defra‟s energy crop grant scheme, Miscanthus and SRC willow are currently

largely excluded from Environmental Stewardship (ES). Within the area for

which establishment grant is applied, up to 10% can be left as open ground

where this is used for management or environmental purposes. The wildlife

value of this crop could be increased by the inclusion of rides and headlands


to increase the number and species of flora and fauna and there is scope for

well-researched plantation design and management protocols to be

included in ES to improve the crop‟s value to wildlife.

4.1.3 Water use

During summer in the UK, water use from mature SRC willow exceeds that of

all other vegetation and on an annual basis is second only to coniferous forest

(18). This is due to high transpiration rates and interception losses, as a result of

large leaf areas (19; 20; 21).

Miscanthus yields are known to be affected by soil water content and as this

drops so too will the productivity of the energy crop (22; 23; 24).

C3 photosynthesising crops (e.g. poplar and willow) use water less efficiently

than C4 species (e.g. Miscanthus and switchgrass). For example, Hall (25)

found annual water use in Miscanthus was 40-100 mm less, on a per unit area

basis, than that of SRC.

There is a perception amongst farmers that the deep, coarse roots typical of

these species can affect drainage ditches and be difficult and expensive to

remove from the field (26) although this is not supported by scientific

evidence and due to the fast growing nature and frequency of harvest of the

crops much of the plants energy is used to maximise above ground biomass

thus not allowing deep or thick roots to become established

SRC willow is a riparian species, meaning it thrives in areas prone to flooding.

Planting energy crops on areas prone to flooding has been identified as one

solution to mitigating the long-term impact of high water use in SRC energy

crops and the conflict with food producing land but there is still a lack of

evidence to determine the wider impacts on water tables and catchments.

This also makes mechanical harvesting more problematic during winter.

4.1.4 GHG emissions

While it is true that in general energy crops reduce GHG emissions, studies

show that the species grown, its energy conversion route and the land use it

displaces, play important roles in determining the speed at which GHG

savings are seen (relative to fossil fuels).

St. Clair et al. (27)found that Miscanthus and SRC grown for power and

electricity abated more GHG emissions than either grasslands or traditional

crop systems, as a consequence of decreased fossil fuel inputs and increased

carbon sequestration. However, the converse was true when these crops

were used to replace broadleaf woodland. Again, there remains a lack of

evidence on the impacts of growing perennial bioenergy crops on idle or

otherwise uncropped land.

Limitations: Studies are often based on modelling which has a large degree of

potential error. GHG emissions are also dependent on the efficiency of


conversion to energy; converting biomass to electricity without heat recovery

will decrease the GHG mitigation potential of the crop.

4.1.5 Review of educational barriers and opportunities

Awareness of the Energy Crop Scheme subsidy for crop establishment is very

poor; there is little or no promotion of the scheme.

Miscanthus and in particular SRC willow are a change to the normal range of

crops planted by farmers; they involve a break from traditional agronomy

practices, supply chains and harvesting routines. This can be a daunting

prospect for many farmers and training and education is still needed to move

development from energy entrepreneurs to more typical arable

farmers/landowners.

Most farmers have a poor understanding of correct establishment and

management practises for perennial energy crops.

Forestry Commission (and other bodies) have supported and promoted

uptake of woodfuel, but there is no similar push for energy crops. Need clear

government support and a „champion‟ to promote energy crops. Need an

effective group to lobby for energy crops and an opportunity to share views.

Needs to be more promotion of the environmental and biodiversity benefits

of energy crops in order to raise their profile and public/industry perception.

4.2 Review of economic, legislative and technical barriers and

opportunities

NNFCC engages regularly with stakeholders in the bioenergy industries in order to

gather market information relating to the economic, legislative and technical

barriers to deployment.

Recent NNFCC discussions with key players in the energy crops industry have

revealed some useful insights into the current status of the sector and industries views

on barriers to deployment of energy crops. The following comments are direct

quotes from companies in the field.

Relating to Miscanthus:

We see strong demand for biomass from energy crops - both on a large scale

for co firing etc. and for local use; both for pellet and straw with good

contracts and prices.

We see a remarkable improvement in planting and crop establishment.

We see much better knowledge and understanding of the benefits of the

crop in farming situations, biodiversity and for meeting government policy on

carbon reduction and fuel security as part of a package.

BUT delivery is failing to take off due almost entirely to lack of a clear and

consistent government message and poor delivery by the various agencies.


There is also a lack of promotion of ECS and a complete lack of knowledge or

priority by assessors; the fact that Miscanthus is not included in any options

compounds this.

Farmers can be criticised as being traditionally reluctant to try something new

but many are independent and entrepreneurial business men who care

about UK plc. and the environment.

Having said that – a period of rising fuel prices, increased publicity about the

benefits of Miscanthus and stability in the supply chain together with excellent

new planting results has seen a maturing of the industry and we are defiantly

seeing a slowly gaining confidence.

The main barrier to expansion of energy crop production in the UK is the lack

of a clear message and a trustworthy and stable policy/financial package

around the ECS and the RHI, FIT etc. Lack of joined up thinking of SFP and

ELS/HLS and a general unwillingness by government, Natural England and

DECC to help promote the new developments under one umbrella.

After a lot of hard work those that support Miscanthus now have a VERY

good, strong story to promote on all fronts, be it economic, environmental,

farming enterprise, biodiversity, food/fuel, carbon reduction, handling and

burning etc. Those who have had the opportunity to see the current planting

of the past two years and the results it produces have shown enthusiasm way

beyond that of 2 years ago. Strong arable margins (albeit under current SFP

levels which will reduce) inevitably make people lazy about exploring other

options, however, as costs rise and support falls, interest is growing. Much of

the current planting is relatively small blocks for new growers. And this slow

expansion will not help government reach its own targets.

Government MUST ensure a new scheme is set up and ready to go when the

current one expires. Unless this is done all the hard work in confidence

building, R&D in planting, and the new markets opening up will disappear

overnight as it did before.

Relating to SRC willow:

We would say that the energy crops industry is pretty stale at the moment

and showing little, if any, growth. From our own group's point of view, we

have a very small area of SRC to plant this spring but are also seeing crops

planted in the mid to late '90s coming out after harvest and not being

replaced.

Demand for energy crops from heat/power users has remained fairly static

over the past couple of years. We have been asked to tender for supply into

new biomass installations but have found that at the moment we cannot

compete with other woody biomass steams i.e. waste wood, forestry waste

etc. in terms of both price and specification. We do think that RHI may

stimulate growth in energy crops, but it will be very slow. We would be

pleased to see a more "joined up" approach to biomass installations with


v

more consideration given to the specification, delivery and storage of a bulky

fuel in the early stages of the project.

We would like to think that the future for perennial energy crops in the UK is

positive, but would have to say that currently that future is underpinned by

demand from the major power generators. We are seeing a steady flow of

farmers/growers/landowners planting SRC for use in their own biomass boilers

in building conversions, holiday lets, glasshouses etc. and we think that this will

continue to grow steadily with the introduction of RHI and a domestic tariff

later.

The main barrier to expansion of energy crop production (unless grown for

own use) in the UK remains financial. Growers are reluctant to finance up

front a crop from which they will receive no return for four years and for which

the return, whilst not subject to the fluctuations of the commodity markets, is

perceived to be moderate. The uncertainty over the funding (if any) post

2013 is not boosting confidence.

The main reason for farmers/growers have chosen to plant SRC over the past

few years has predominantly been for own use in biomass boilers as noted

earlier. We have seen little planting of SRC from farmers choosing to grow the

crop for the crops sake.

NNFCC market analysis and engagement with the biomass industry has highlighted

the following economic, legislative and technical barriers to successful deployment

of domestic energy crops.

Economic:

Cash flow issues between planting and the first harvest are critical and

support during this time is needed, it would give not only financial security but

also confidence in the market.

Small margins for the grower at present mean there is little room for error and

if the grower has an unexpected additional cost then they may be left with

no profit at all and possibly even a deficit.

The energy sector offers a great opportunity for diversification in the

agricultural sector but at the moment prices are too low to make it attractive

to farmers.

Farmers themselves are often not willing to contract long term, even if

financial gains significant.

Finance is available towards the planting of energy crops, but there is no

funding for contractors/other stakeholders to provide support and advice to

the sector.

Need more support for growers to access end users and secure off-take

contracts. Including helping farmers to supply into local markets, which may

make them more willing to plant energy crops (due to higher price and

benefit to local communities).


Legislative:

Need to make it easier for new innovative crops (e.g. switchgrass) to be

classified as an energy crop under the Renewables Obligation (RO) – previous

legislation meant they were eligible but was very difficult to document, new

proposals may exclude similar innovations currently.

Need to allow farmers to get Entry Level Stewardship benefits from the actual

energy crop and open ground within the crop for which the grant is also

payable.

RO energy crop uplift needs to be grandfathered to give confidence to the

market and enable access to finance for energy crop supply chains and

infrastructure.

Grandfathering of the uplift may also stimulate increased demand from

generators and provide a more stable market for energy crops, encouraging

more farmers to plant.

Technical:

Biomass boilers are not always compatible with Miscanthus (due to ash

alkalinity and melting temperature) and SRC (sometimes, due to high

moisture content or high chlorine content); additional advice about boilers

that suit Miscanthus/SRC would be very useful.

Further support needed towards infrastructure, especially processing and

pelleting equipment.

Need pellet mills local to farmers so that can transport material economically

over longer distances.

There is a lack of specialist planting/harvesting equipment, which prevents

significant expansion of the sector.

4.3 Summary of barriers and opportunities

Despite Government investment in some of the key areas identified above, the

production of energy crops is being severely constrained by the lack of promotion of

the Energy Crops Scheme to potential growers, agents, consultants or advisors.

These players could offer a secure supply of sustainable indigenous biomass but they

are cautious about a new venture and lack knowledge and information about the

potential opportunities of energy crops and the bioenergy market. Conflicts of

organisational objectives within Natural England make it very difficult for them to

actively promote energy crops, and so the industry would welcome a reappraisal of

the structure of this scheme, including consideration of transferring the management

to an independent non-conflicting authority. If this is not addressed there is a real

danger that the £27 million funding available to enable planting of these crops

could fail to realise the objectives set.


The issues and barriers surrounding energy crops constitute a complex problem

requiring a multi-faceted solution, which requires further time and research to

answer fully. The benefits of energy crops include not only their use for biomass heat

and electricity but also their ability to store carbon, benefit industrial landscapes,

prevent erosion, improve biodiversity in the right location and ensure fuel security.

The table below sets out the key barriers identified from our discussions with industry

representatives and the potential mitigating actions from Government and Industry.

Figure 3: Summary of the most severe barriers to energy crops

Barrier Impact Government mitigation Industry mitigation

Lack of

specialist

planting/harves

ting equipment.

Severe - will

restrict ability to

increase planting

or harvesting

rate.

Long term support is

required to encourage

machinery suppliers to

invest in specialist

equipment development.

Invest in development of

specialist equipment,

when long term support is

guaranteed.

Poor

understanding

of correct

establishment

and

management

practices by

growers.

Will hamper

confidence and

delay uptake,

but not severe.

Update best practice

guidance for planting and

establishment; previous

version is dated. Support

trial work on planting and

management techniques,

i.e. precision planting.

Establish trials to consider

alternative planting and

management

techniques and

communicate the

findings; Masstock Energy

SMART Farms are a start.

Not

economically

viable for

farmers.

Reduced

feedstock

availability.

Missed

opportunity for

UK agriculture.

Energy Crops Scheme

currently supports

Miscanthus and SRC; list of

energy crops in RO

Consultation is somewhat

longer. Need long term

guaranteed support, to

encourage uptake.

Investigate cost

reduction innovations.

High up front

establishment

costs.

Reduced

feedstock

availability.

Missed

opportunity for

UK agriculture.

Energy Crops Scheme

supports 50% of planting

and establishment costs,

not guaranteed post-

2013. Consider

restructuring scheme to

cover issue of no income

for first 2 - 3 years post-

planting.

Investigate cost

reduction innovations

and new crops (i.e. novel

energy grasses).

Lack of

promotion of

the Energy

Crops Scheme

to potential

growers,

Severe - likely to

be very little or

no production of

these fuels.

Natural England

administer the scheme

but do not promote it, nor

does any other authority.

Promotional activity is

required to generate

Need to establish a fixed

programme of meetings

and activities, promoted

through farming

organisations such as

NFU, CLA.


agents,

consultants or

advisors.

interest and encourage

applications. Promotion

should be carried out by

an independent

organisation with

technical knowledge and

a strong interest, such as

NNFCC.

'Standard'

biomass boilers

are not

compatible with

energy crops

(Miscanthus

specifically).

If no compatible

systems are

installed then

there will be

more demand

for other woody

feedstocks, and

energy crops

may be diverted

to lower value

use for power

generation.

Develop educational

programme about

compatibility of fuels and

boilers. Communicate

good matches through

BEC/NNFCC/CT/EST etc.

Continue to develop and

promote fuel-flexible

boilers. State ash melting

temperature

compatibility in boiler

specs. Conduct more

trials on non-woody fuels.

Promote the energy crop

boiler guide established

by NNFCC.

Lack of

specialist local

supply

infrastructure.

Imperfect supply

mechanisms

may be used

(e.g. tractor and

trailer) and this

may restrict

number of

installations.

Provide support for supply

chain infrastructure.

Invest in equipment and

infrastructure.

5 Scenario development for energy crop deployment

Potential biomass supply scenarios were developed on the broad assumptions that

energy crops should only be planted where they:

Do not conflict with food production;

Do not impact on ecosystem services;

Do not displace alternative land uses that offer greater GHG savings;

Return a profit.

According to research from the UK Energy Research Centre (28)the biomass

feedstocks offering greatest potential for growth are perennial energy crops and

wastes. For energy crops, growth comes from the allocation of land to a variety of

perennial crops. However, for agricultural residues, growth comes from increased

utilisation, but the fundamental resource does not change markedly; Fischer (29)

predicts that the resource from agricultural residues will decrease as perennial crops

encroach onto agricultural land. If technological improvements increased crop


yields, or population decreased, or diets changed and the consumption of meat

was reduced, then at least in theory, surplus land would become available.

Figure 4: Range of predictions for the contribution to UK primary energy from

domestically source biomass feedstocks (28)

5.1 Maximum theoretical potential

UK modelling approaches largely focus on using expert judgement rather than the

top-down approach common in Europe-wide models (30; 31; 29). The EEA (31)

report evaluates land availability using a partial equilibrium land use model

(CAPSIM) to derive an estimate that between 0.8 M ha (in 2010) to 3.4 M ha (in 2030)

could be released in the UK as a result of reform to the common agricultural policy

(CAP).

Approximately half of the land released would be former grassland 5. The Fischer (29)

report uses assumptions about the rate of technical advances in crop yields, food

demand (considered to be a function of population and diet) and livestock intensity

to estimate land available for energy crops in member states. Stipulating that

maintaining the current level of self-sufficiency for food should be a fundamental

constraint, this report estimates that up to 1.1 M ha could be made available for

energy crops in the UK, split between different land classes. The deWit (30) report

adopts a similar approach, calculating that the area freed up in the UK will be 0-

5 This is not recommended in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (36) and may also

impact biodiversity


6.5% in East England, 6.5-17% across most of the rest of the UK, and up to 31% in

South West England; however, estimates of the actual area are not given.

Results of research on Miscanthus yield and land availability by Rothamsted

Research and the University of East Anglia (32) concluded that: (i) regional contrasts

occur in the importance of different factors affecting biomass planting; (ii) areas

with the highest biomass yields co-locate with food producing areas on high grade

land, and; (iii) when land use is restricted to grade 3 or 4 agricultural land only

excluding environmentally sensitive landscapes and grasslands (3.12 M ha), then the

total yield across England is 38.9 M odt (an average of 12.5 odt ha−1). This paper

does not include Scotland or Wales because of a lack of data.

Using a similar approach for SRC, researchers at the University of Southampton and

the Forestry Commission found that 0.8 M ha of land for SRC is realistically available

in England and could be grown almost entirely on poor quality marginal lands

(agricultural grades 4 and 5) (33). With an average yield of 9.4 oven dried tonnes per

hectare (odt ha-1) such production would produce 7.5 M odt of biomass. This figure

could be greatly increased if more favourable agricultural land were used to grow

energy crops. This paper is based on upscaled field trial data from the UK national

SRC field trials network but upscaling does not include Scotland or Wales because of

a lack of supplementary data.

If we follow the restraint criteria identified earlier in this chapter and make

assumptions6 based on the work of Lovett et al. (32) and Aylott et al. (33), we can

estimate the maximum likely availability of land in England and Wales at between

0.93 and 3.63 M ha may be available to energy crops.

5.2 Likely farmer uptake based on gross margins

However, this does not take into account likely uptake by farmers. Sherrington et al.

(34) suggests this will be closely linked to gross margins. SRC currently achieves

between £45-60/odt on energy crop contracts with power stations. This would

deliver a gross margin of between £116/ha and £241/ha, respectively – based on 8.3

odt/ha (35).

Miscanthus, on the other hand, can attain higher gross margins due to higher

productivity. Contract prices can be as low as £45/odt – which would give a gross

margin of around £306/ha (at 14.0 odt/ha) – or as high as £75/odt which would give

a gross margin closer to £736/ha. If we assume £60/odt is a typical price for a current

contract then a gross margin of £526/ha is achievable (35).

6 Wales has 1.53 M hectares of agricultural land. England has 9.34 M ha of agricultural land. If

we assume that between 8.6 and 33.4 per cent of the agricultural land in England could

realistically be available to perennial energy crops and apply this to Wales then 0.13 and

0.51 M ha of land may be suitable for energy crops in Wales, however not all of this will be

available economically.


A comparative gross margin for winter oilseed rape is £714/ha (based on

£340/tonne), winter wheat is £673/ha (based on £140/tonne) and winter barley is

£532/ha (based on £135/tonne) (35). Growing conventional crops typically exceeds

the gross margins achievable from growing energy crops but a 2005 University of

Cambridge study found that uptake of energy crops occurs at levels of gross margin

lower than would be expected given the gross margins of conventional crops. This is

related to the fact that the energy crop gross margins include the costs of

machinery and labour as most work is undertaken through contract. But if farmers

use on-farm machinery and labour, then the gross margin will improve.

If we assume a gross margin of £526/ha for Miscanthus then uptake amongst

landowners is predicted to be around 77% based purely on financial costs (34). This

would indicate that a uptake based on gross margins would be between 0.72-2.80

M ha based on £526/ha and using our assumptions from the work of Lovett et al. (32)

and Aylott et al. (33) 7. However, if we assume a gross margin of £241/ha for SRC

then uptake amongst landowners is predicted to be around 67%, based purely on

financial costs (34). This would indicate that an uptake based on gross margins

would be between 0.62-2.43 M ha based on £241/ha and using our assumptions

from the work of Lovett et al. (32) and Aylott et al. (33) 8.

5.3 Likely farmer uptake based on social factors

The actual supply response of UK farmers to perennial energy crops, given the

current energy and agricultural policy environment, is clearly going to be different

from the modelled supply response.

A 2008 survey of arable farmers by Sherrington et al. (26) found that around 1.5% of

respondents to the question “Are you intending to plant Miscanthus on your farm in

the next five years?” said probably or certainly (n=133), while a further 15.8% were

unsure. Similarly, when asked “Are you intending to plant SRC willow on your farm in

the next five years?” 0.8% said probably or certainly (n=131), while a further 10.7%

were unsure.

Farmers perceive these novel crops to present a greater risk than conventional

annual crops, for numerous reasons outlined above, and will not simply switch to

them when the predicted gross margin is slightly higher than for an existing activity.

For most farmers, there should, however, come a point when the price offered for

7 These numbers are calculated by multiplying the maximum theoretical potential (derived

from Lovett et al. (32) and Aylott et al. (33)) by the potential landowner uptake identified by

Sherrington et al. (34) which are based on gross margins (0.93 M ha * 0.77 and 3.63 M ha *

0.77 for £526/ha margins). 8 These numbers are calculated by multiplying the maximum theoretical potential (derived


Sherrington et al. (34) which are based on gross margins (0.93 M ha * 0.67 and 3.63 M ha *

0.67 for £241/ha margins).


Miscanthus or SRC willow is sufficiently high to overcome these other concerns.

When this occurs, in effect, payment will accurately reflect the premium for the risk

that individual farmers believe they are taking.

There is a clear need for education, training and improved contract security to

reassure farmers that there are grounds for the investment of capital and time.

Without which, based on these numbers and the work of Lovett et al. (32) and Aylott

et al. (33) 9, uptake could be as low as 0.007-0.05 M ha in England and Wales.

6 Conclusions

The theoretical maximum available land for Miscanthus and SRC has been modelled

at between 0.93 and 3.63 M ha. If we assume planting would not take place below

a gross margin of £526/ha for Miscanthus (at £60/odt) then research suggests the

maximum area of land available will be 0.72-2.80 M ha. Alternatively, if we assume a

gross margin of £241/ha for SRC (at £60/odt) this figure decreases to 0.62-2.43 M ha.

But Miscanthus and SRC remain novel crops and there is an associated risk with

growing them. Without education, training and improved contract security uptake

could be as low as 0.007-0.05 M ha in England and Wales. These ranges must be

interpreted with care as the underlying assumptions have a large degree of

potential error but offer an estimate based on our best knowledge and

understanding.

The production of energy crops is being severely constrained by the lack of

promotion of the Energy Crops Scheme to potential growers, agents, consultants or

advisors. These players could offer a secure supply of sustainable biomass but they

are cautious and lack knowledge and information about potential opportunities of

energy crops and the bioenergy market.

If we were to carry on business as usual, perennial energy crops will remain marginal.

As current plantations come to the end of their 15-20 year productive life and are

scrubbed up, with no real incentive to replant, the planted area could even decline.

If we increase the amount of plantings 10 we have every year between now and

2020 by 20% this will mean by 2020 we have approximately 0.04 M ha in the ground,

which falls around the middle of our lowest range. This clearly shows we have much

to do to come close to the potential offered by energy crops and also does not

take into account the delay in achieving harvestable biomass. Having a crop in the

9 These numbers are calculated by multiplying the maximum theoretical potential (derived


Sherrington et al. (26) which are based on farmer interest (0.93 M ha * 0.008 and 3.63 M ha *

0.015). 10 The latest figures we have access to suggest ~10k ha has been planted through the ECS to

date (Natural England, 2011). An additional 1,500 ha of SRC is understood to have been

planted pre-ECS for the ARBRE project.


ground does not mean it will be readily available for energy, Miscanthus can take

between two and three years to establish and be harvested and SRC willow takes

three to five years to mature before it can be harvested.

The benefits of energy crops include not only their use for biomass heat and

electricity but also their ability to store carbon, benefit industrial landscapes, prevent

erosion, improve biodiversity in the right location and ensure fuel security.

Domestic supplies of perennial energy crops often have superior GHG balances and

more needs to be done to encourage their development. This could include full

effective promotion of the existing ring fenced Energy Crops Scheme, its extension

and communication to agriculture and biomass sectors beyond 2013 and robust

support for the production of sustainable biomass on non-prime arable land that is

inefficient for food production. Addressing all the barriers to deployment will require

further action both from Government and Industry.

7 References

1. Natural England. Data on energy crop plantings updated Feb 2012. Personal

Communication. 2012.

2. Ofgem. Annual Sustainability Report 2010-11. 2011.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=318&refer=Sustaina

bility/Environment/RenewablObl/FuelledStations.

3. Department of Energy and Climate Change. Biomass Strategy. 2007.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/uk%20energy%20supply/e

nergy%20mix/renewable%20energy/explained/bioenergy/policy_strat/1_2009102116

4854_e_@@_ukbiomassstrategy.pdf.

4. Thornley, P. Personal Communication. 2012.

5. Ethanol Expansion in the Food versus Fuel Debate: How Will Developing Countries

Fare? Elobeid, A and Hart, C. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization,

2007, Vol. 5 (2).

6. The Ripple Effect: Biofuels, Food Security, and the Environment. Naylor, RL, et al.

Environment Magazine, 2007.

7. Gallagher, E. The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production.

2008.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110131070443/http://www.renewablef

uelsagency.gov.uk/sites/renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/files/_documents/Report_of

_the_Gallagher_review.pdf.

8. Mitchell, D. A Note on Rising Food Prices: Policy Research Working Paper 4682. The

World Bank, Development Prospects Group, 2008.


9. Anatomy of a crisis: the causes and consequences of surging food prices.

Headey, D and Fan, S. Agricultural Economics, 2008, Vol. 39 (s1), pp. 375-391.

10. Urbanchuk, JM. Critique of the World Bank Working Paper "A Note on Rising Food

Prices". LECG LLC, 2008.

11. OEC; UN Food and Agricluture Organisation. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook

2009-2018. 2009.

12. Nixon, P and Bullard, M. Planting and growing Miscanthus. Defra, 2001.

13. The environmental impacts of biomass crops: use by birds of miscanthus in

summer and winter in southwestern England. Sage, R, et al. IBIS, Vol. 152 (3), pp. 487-

499.

14. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Biomass and

Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies. 2004.

15. DTI. Renewable Supply Chain Gap Analysis: Summary Report. 2004.

16. Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of

dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Rowe, RL, Street, NR and Taylor, G. Renewable

Energy Reviews, Vol. 13 (1), pp. 271-290.

17. Potential benefits of commercial willow Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) for farm-

scale plant and invertebrate communities in the agri-environment. Rowe, RL, et al.

Biomass and Bioenergy, 2011, Vol. 35 (1).

18. Hall, RL. Short Rotation Coppice for Energy Production: Hydrological Guidelines.

Department for Trade and Industry, 2003.

19. Growth, productivity and water use in three hybrid poplar clones. Souch, C and

Stephens, W. 1998, Tree Physiology, Vol. 18 (12), pp. 829-835.

20. Inter-relationships between water use and growth traits in biomass-producing

willows. Wikberg, J and Ogren, E. 2004, Trees, Vol. 18, pp. 70-76.

21. Yield and spatial supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in

the UK. Aylott, M, et al. 2008, New Phytologist, Vol. 178 (4), pp. 358-370.

22. Water Use Efficiency and Biomass Partitioning of Three Different Miscanthus

Genotypes with Limited and Unlimited Water Supply. Clifton-Brown, JC and

Lewandowski, L. 2000, Annals of Botany, Vol. 86 (1), pp. 191-200.

23. Effects of soil water content and nitrogen supply on the productivity of

Miscanthus x giganteus Greef et Deu. in a Mediterranean environment. Cosentino,

SL, et al. 2007, Industrial Crops and Products, Vol. 25, pp. 75-88.

24. Is UK biofuel supply from Miscanthus water-limited? Richter, GM, et al. 2008, Soil

Use and Management, Vol. 24 (3), pp. 235-245.


25. Hall, RL. Grasses for Energy Production: Hydrological Guidelines. Deparment for

Trade and Industry, 2003.

26. Farm-level constraints on the domestic supply of perennial energy crops in the

UK. Sherrington, C, Bartley, J and Moran, D. 2008, Energy Policy, Vol. 36 (7), pp. 2504-

2512.

27. Estimating the pre-harvest greenhouse gas costs of energy crop production. St

Clair, S, Hillier, J and Smith, P. 2008, Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 32 (5), pp. 442-452.

28. UKERC. Energy from biomass: the size of the global resource. 2011.

29. Fischer, GE, et al. Assessment of biomass potentials for biofuel feedstock

production in Europe: Methodology and results. s.l. : IIASA, 2007.

30. European biomass resource potential and costs. deWit, M and Faaij, A. 2009,

Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 34 (2), pp. 188-202.

31. European Environment Agency (EEA). European Environment Agency technical

report #12/2007: estimating the environmentally compatible bioenergy potential

from agriculture. 2007.

32. Land use implications of increased biomass production identified by GIS-based

suitability and yield mapping for Miscanthus in England. Lovett, A, et al. 2009,

Bioenergy Research, Vol. 2, pp. 17-28.

33. Estimating the supply of biomass from short-rotation coppice in England, given

social, economic and environmental constraints to land availability. Aylott, MJ, et al.

2010, Biofuels, Vol. 1 (5), pp. 719-727.

34. Modelling farmer uptake of perennial energy crops in the UK. Sherrington, C and

Moran, D. 2010, Energy Policy, Vol. 38 (7), pp. 3567-3578.

35. Nix, J. John Nix Farm Management Pocket Book. 2012.

36. Greenhouse gas emissions from four bioenergy crops in England and Wales:

Integrating spatial estimates of yield and soil carbon balance in life cycle analyses.

Hillier, J, et al. 2009, GCB Bioenergy, Vol. 1, pp. 267-281.

NNFCC

NNFCC is a leading international consultancy with expertise on the conversion of

biomass to bioenergy, biofuels and bio-based products.

NNFCC, Biocentre, Phone: +44 (0)1904 435182

York Science Park, Fax: +44 (0)1904 435345

Innovation Way, E: [email protected]

Heslington, York, Web: www.nnfcc.co.uk

YO10 5DG.

Documents

Domestic Energy Crops Potential and Constraints Review